Law Hum Behav (2010) 34:39–40
DOI 10.1007/s10979-009-9203-y
O RI G I N A L A R T I C L E
High-Risk Interrogation: Using the ‘‘Mr. Big Technique’’
to Elicit Confessions
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Steven M. Smith • Veronica Stinson •
Marc W. Patry
Published online: 23 January 2010
Ó American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2010
Abstract Kassin et al. (Police-Induced Confessions: Risk
Factors and Recommendation, 2009) provide a detailed and
thoughtful analysis of how police interrogation practices
might elicit false confessions from innocent suspects. The
purpose of this commentary is to provide a brief review of a
relatively recent development in Canadian police investigation practice and discuss how this procedure may increase
the likelihood of police-induced false confessions. The socalled ‘‘Mr. Big Technique’’ is a non-custodial interrogation
tactic wherein suspects are drawn into a supposed criminal
organization (actually an elaborate police sting) and subsequently told that to move up in the organization, they
must confess to a crime. In this article, we describe this
remarkable interrogation technique and discuss issues relevant to the potential induction of false confessions.
Keywords Confessions False confession Police
undercover operations Mr. Big undercover operation
In their paper, Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors
and Recommendations, Kassin et al. (2009) provide a
Commentary on: Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo, and
Redlich (2009) Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and
Recommendations
S. M. Smith (&) V. Stinson M. W. Patry
Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada
e-mail: steven.smith@smu.ca
V. Stinson
e-mail: veronica.stinson@smu.ca
M. W. Patry
e-mail: marc.patry@smu.ca
detailed and thoughtful analysis of how police interrogation practices can induce false confession within the
context of an in-custody interrogation. Consistent with
those of most Western countries, the Canadian legal system
recognizes that procedures and practices used by police
during interrogation can occasionally result in false confessions. However, a relatively recent development in
Canadian police investigations may increase the likelihood
of police-induced false confessions.
Specifically, Canadian police agencies have adopted an
interrogation approach colloquially called the ‘‘Mr. Big
Technique’’ (see Smith, Stinson, & Patry, 2009, for a review).
Although there are some variations in how the Mr. Big
Technique is operationalized, there are consistent themes.
First, the suspect is befriended by an undercover police
operative who may ‘‘meet’’ the suspect while in custody or at
a place of employment (Sands, 2005). The operative then
spends a significant amount of time establishing a friendship
with the suspect, buying meals and gifts, going out to bars and
nightclubs, and spending money. Eventually, the operative
introduces the suspect into a criminal gang (created by police)
where they complete simple tasks—counting money, acting
as a lookout—for large sums of money (up to several thousand dollars per week).
Later, the operative informs suspects that they have been
selected to be ‘‘promoted’’ within the organization, but a
condition of that promotion is a meeting with the Big Boss
or ‘‘Mr. Big.’’ At this stage, one of several tactics can be
used. Suspects are informed that to be accepted into the
organization, they must confess to a crime. Supposedly, the
confession provides the organization with ‘‘dirt’’ (i.e.,
information) to use against the suspect if necessary. In
addition, suspects are sometimes told that the confession
will allow the organization to use its contacts to ‘‘get rid
of’’ any evidence against the suspect (R. v. Boudreau,
123
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
40
2009); thus police will not find out about the criminal
gang’s activities while in the pursuit of the suspect.
Sometimes Mr. Big will tell the suspect that the organization has a person who is willing (either for money or for
other considerations) to confess to the crime (R. v. Mentuck, 2000). However, the suspect must provide a detailed
confession to the crime in question (the one under police
investigation) in order to secure their promotion. This
confession is required orally and usually in writing, and is
surreptitiously videotaped by police.
Kassin et al. (2009) discuss the potential role of minimization of the severity of the crime in false confessions.
Equally important, they discuss the issue of maximization
(see Kassin & McNall, 1991) whereby through ‘‘pragmatic
implication’’ interrogators subtly convey to suspects that
refusing to confess will result in harsher treatment. It is
important to point out that the Mr. Big Technique constitutes a non-custody interrogation; suspects are not being
detained, nor are they aware they are being interrogated
(see Smith et al., 2009). Because the suspect is not in police
custody, many of the safeguards designed for in-custody
police interrogations (e.g., right to contact a lawyer, right to
remain silent, limitations on quid pro quo promises) do not
apply. In some cases (e.g., R v. Mentuck, 2000) suspects
even are told that a confession will lead to their exoneration. In Mentuck, the suspect was told that once he
confessed, another gang member would confess to police.
Mr. Big also promised to hire Mentuck a lawyer to help sue
to police for false prosecution and guaranteed a minimum
$85,000 settlement. Similarly, Penny Boudreau (R. v.
Boudreau, 2009) was promised that the evidence linking
her to the murder of her daughter would be destroyed.
Of course, the costs of not confessing are also highlighted (i.e., maximized). The suspect will lose the high
paying, low-effort job. Sometimes, the person who brought
the suspect into the gang (now a close friend) is also
threatened with job loss. In one case, the suspect witnessed
another ‘‘gang member’’ who did not confess to her crime
taken into another room and ‘‘beaten’’ (R. v. Bonisteel,
2008). As long as the suspect does not believe the operatives
are ‘‘persons in authority,’’ police have relatively free reign
on how to construct a Mr. Big sting (R v. Hodgson, 1998).
Mr. Big undercover operations can be quite complex
(involving up to 50 police operatives) and expensive (some
costing upwards of $300,000–400,000). With a reported
75% success rate and a 95% conviction rate (Gardner, 2004),
the RCMP are not likely to stop using this approach any time
soon. After all, the Supreme Court of Canada has deemed
that this procedure is admissible (R. v. Osmar, 2007).
Clearly, the Mr. Big Technique is problematic for several
reasons (see Smith et al., 2009; see also Moore, Copeland,
& Schuller, in press). Aside from the obvious motivations to
provide a false confession, any false confessions can taint
123
Law Hum Behav (2010) 34:39–40
other evidence and skew police investigations (Kassin et al.,
2009). One remedy that Kassin et al. (2009) and others (e.g.,
Lassiter & Geers, 2004) have suggested is documenting the
entire interrogation. In theory, videotaped recordings of the
entire Mr. Big operation would allow the trier-of-fact with
the opportunity to determine the history and context in
which the confession was provided and judge its reliability.
However, these same recordings may be prejudicial because
they provide clear evidence of the suspect’s criminal
activity, further augmenting the power of the confession. In
any event, such recordings are unlikely because they are not
required because the suspect is not in custody.
Despite the absence of research that focuses specifically
on the Mr. Big Technique, we believe that the corpus of
research on both in-custody interrogation techniques and
the psychological factors involved in false confessions
indicates that the Mr. Big Technique creates fertile ground
for suspects to provide false confessions. Of course, we
hope that researchers will shed some light on the questions
raised by the use of the Mr. Big Technique. Such research
may help inform the courts and, ultimately, stimulate discussions on the merits of this approach.
References
Gardner, C. (2004, February). R.C.M.P. clarify & defend the ‘‘Mayerthorpe Mister Big’’ operation. RCMP Watch. Retrieved from
http://www.rcmpwatch.com/rcmp-clarify-defend-the-mayerthorpemister-big-operation/.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo,
R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2009). Police-induced confessions: Risk
factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior.
doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6. Retrieved from http://www.
springerlink.com/content/85vh322j085784t0/?p=e9ebc0e4afcb
401e87a4c97fc5cda8a3&pi=3.
Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and
confession: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic
implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–251.
Lassiter, G. D., & Geers, A. L. (2004). Bias and accuracy in the
evaluation of confession evidence. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.),
Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 197–214). New
York: Kluwer.
Moore, T. E., Copeland, P., & Schuller, R. (in press). Deceit, betrayal
and the search for truth: Legal and psychological perspectives on
the ‘Mr. Big’ strategy. Criminal Law Quarterly.
R. v. Bonisteel. (2008). BCCA 344.
R. v. Boudreau. (2009). NSSC 30.
R v. Hodgson. (1998). 2 S.C.R. 449.
R. v. Mentuck. (2000). MBQB 155.
R. v. Osmar. (2007). ONCA 50.
Sands, A. (2005). Mountie sued by former suspect now heads
Sherwood Park detachment, Edmonton Sun, January 20, 2005.
Retrieved from http://www.injusticebusters.com/05/Steinke_
Gary.shtml.
Smith, S. M., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. W. (2009). The Mr. Big
Technique: Successful innovation or dangerous development in
the Canadian legal system? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
15, 168–193.